Lichtenstein v. Emerson
| Decision Date | 09 June 1998 |
| Citation | 674 N.Y.S.2d 298,251 A.D.2d 64 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5386 William T. LICHTENSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven EMERSON, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mark E. Herlihy, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David A. Goldstein, for Defendant-Respondent.
Before MILONAS, J.P., and WALLACH, WILLIAMS, TOM and MAZZARELLI, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 26, 1997, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint by reason, inter alia, of the circumstance that plaintiff's attorney was not, when he commenced the action on plaintiff's behalf, authorized to practice in New York State, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff's attorney, a resident of Washington D.C., was properly found not to have satisfied the condition placed upon the practice of law in New York State by non-New York residents pursuant to Judiciary Law § 470, namely, that they maintain an "office for the transaction of law business ... within the state". The motion court's essentially factual determination in this regard was amply supported by the evidence. The assertion by plaintiff that his attorney transacted legal business from a small room located in the basement of a restaurant and bar reachable only by passing through a kitchen and down a flight of stairs was most improbable. In addition, plaintiff's attorney had not reported any New York income for the past five years; he had no employees in this State; his name was not posted anywhere on the premises; there was no indication that any of the employees of the restaurant/bar had ever been instructed to accept legal papers; and the attorney had listed, both on his registration with the Office of Court Administration and on his membership forms for the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, a Washington address as his office.
Nor is there merit to plaintiff's contention that the New York office requirement of Judiciary Law § 470 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. It is well settled that "statutes--the enactments of a coequal branch of government--enjoy a presumption of constitutionality" (Matter of Lunding v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, 89 N.Y.2d 283, 287, 653 N.Y.S.2d 62, 675 N.E.2d 816, reversed on other grounds 522 U.S. 287, 118 S.Ct. 766, 139 L.Ed.2d 717; Matter of McGee v. Korman, 70 N.Y.2d 225, 231, 519 N.Y.S.2d 350, 513 N.E.2d 236) and that "[t]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schoenefeld v. New York
...of process and to contact by clients, opposing counsel, the courts, and other interested parties. See Lichtenstein v. Emerson, 251 A.D.2d 64, 64–65, 674 N.Y.S.2d 298 (N.Y.App.Div.1998); see also Matter of Gordon, 48 N.Y.2d at 274, 422 N.Y.S.2d 641, 397 N.E.2d 1309. Plaintiff counters that t......
-
Schoenefeld v. State
...business in New York. See Lichtenstein v. Emerson, 171 Misc.2d 933, 656 N.Y.S.2d 180, 182 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1997), affirmed,251 A.D.2d 64, 674 N.Y.S.2d 298 (1st Dep't 1998) (upholding constitutionality of Section 470 but noting that a resident attorney may utilize her home as an office). The New ......
-
In re EState of Garrasi
...et al., 267 A.D.2d 583, 699 N.Y.S.2d 509; Elm Management Corp. v. Sprung, et al., 33 A.D.3d 753, 823 N.Y.S.2d 187; Lichtenstein v. Emerson, 251 A.D.2d 64, 674 N.Y.S.2d 298; Keenan v. Mitsubishi Estate, et al., 228 A.D.2d 330, 644 N.Y.S.2d 241. These cases involve situations where the out-of......
-
Schoenefeld v. State
...have generally interpreted the statute as requiring a nonresident attorney to maintain a physical office space (see Lichtenstein, 251 A.D.2d 64, 674 N.Y.S.2d 298 ; Haas, 237 A.D.2d 729, 654 N.Y.S.2d 479 ; Matter of Larsen, 182 A.D.2d 149, 587 N.Y.S.2d 39 [2d Dept.1992] ). Defendants' proffe......